Re: 4.14 backport request for dbdda842fe96f: "printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes"

[Daniel Wang <wonderfly@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2871 bytes --]

> So... did my patch address the deadlock you are seeing or it didn't?

I've been meaning to try it but kept getting distracted by other
things. I'll try to find some time for it this week or next. Right now
my intent is to get Steven's patch into 4.14 stable as it evidently
fixed the particular issue I was seeing, and as Steven said it has
been in upstream since 4.16 so it's not like backporting it will raise
any red flags. I will start another thread on -stable for it.

> I guess we still don't have a really clear understanding of what exactly
is going in your system

I would also like to get to the bottom of it. Unfortunately I haven't
got the expertise in this area nor the time to do it yet. Hence the
intent to take a step back and backport Steven's patch to fix the
issue that has resurfaced in our production recently.

> If it's uart_port->lock and there will be 2 patch sets to choose from
for -stable, then -stable guys can pick up the one that requires less
effort: 1 two-liner patch vs. 3 or 4 bigger patches.

Which two sets are you referring to specifically?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:21 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On (12/11/18 17:16), Daniel Wang wrote:
> > > Let's first figure out if it works.
> >
> > I would still like to try applying your patches that went into
> > printk.git, but for now I wonder if we can get Steven's patch into
> > 4.14 first, for at least we know it mitigated the issue if not
> > fundamentally addressed it, and we've agreed it's an innocuous change
> > that doesn't risk breaking stable.
>
> So... did my patch address the deadlock you are seeing or it didn't?
>
> > I haven't done this before so I'll need your help. What's the next
> > step to actually get Steven's patch *in* linux-4.14.y? According to
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> > I am supposed to send an email with the patch ID and subject, which
> > are both mentioned in this email. Should I send another one? What's
> > the process like? Thanks!
>
> I'm not doing any -stable releases, so can't really answer, sorry.
> Probably would be better to re-address this question to 4.14 -stable
> maintainers.
>
>
> ---
> I guess we still don't have a really clear understanding of what exactly
> is going in your system. We don't even know for sure which one of the locks
> is deadlocking the system. And why exactly Steven's patch helps. If it
> is uart_port->lock, then it's one thing; if it's console_sem ->lock then
> it's another thing. But those two are just theories, not supported by any
> logs/backtraces from your systems.
>
> If it's uart_port->lock and there will be 2 patch sets to choose from
> for -stable, then -stable guys can pick up the one that requires less
> effort: 1 two-liner patch vs. 3 or 4 bigger patches.
>
>         -ss



-- 
Best,
Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4849 bytes --]